Henque 1838 CC v Maxprop Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others

Kirtlington Park is a residential estate comprising four sectional title schemes, each governed by its own body corporate. To manage shared facilities used by all residents, the bodies corporate formed a voluntary Home Owners Association (KPHOA). Contributions for shared expenses were collected from each body corporate and administered via the bank account of one body corporate. Henque 1838 CC, a sectional title owner in one scheme (Kirtlington Green), objected to the legality of the KPHOA, compulsory membership, and equal levies. After obtaining earlier court orders excluding it from the KPHOA and preventing its body corporate from contributing to shared expenses, Henque launched a further application seeking repayment to its body corporate of funds allegedly unlawfully transferred from that body corporate’s bank account to another body corporate’s account for the benefit of the KPHOA. The High Court dismissed the application on the basis that Henque lacked locus standi, and Henque appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed.

The case clarifies and reinforces the exclusive role of section 9 of the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act as the mechanism through which sectional title owners may pursue claims belonging to a body corporate. It confirms that owners cannot bypass the statutory scheme by framing such claims as own-interest litigation, thereby strengthening governance structures within sectional title schemes.